214 réponses à ce sujet

[Seboist]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

BellaStrega wrote...

Exia001 wrote...

I still don't see why people consider MEs choices "irrelevant "

Because renegade Shepard doesn't get enough parades and paragon Shepard's choices are valid within the framework of the story.

People aren't arguing for choice, they want a game where renegade choices are the right choices.

Not even that... we want a game where the "right" choice can come from anywhere... not just one source.  Sometimes, in real life, the Jack Bauer approach brings the best results and saves the most lives.  Other times, it doesn't.

The problem with Mass Effect is that it's a rigged game... you already know that the blue button is going to give you the most ideal scenarios and repercussions.  There is no "sacrificing for the greater good."  That's a concept that's thrown around by Bioware that's been completely unnecessary.  Thusfar, making the "ideal" choice has never backfired or come at a greater cost than alternative "tough" choices... invalidating the notion of "tough choices" to begin with.... once you figure that out.

One major problem with Renegade is that all the praise and support s/he should get from their decisions (ex. from the Krogan for wiping out the Rachni or the Quarians for destroying the Geth) never materializes, while Paragon Shepard ends up being like a crooked arms dealer who sells to all sides and makes out like a bandit. ParaSheps never get any grief from people who should be pissed at what they've done (ex. sacrificing human lives to save the council).

Paragon = Please anybody and everyone no matter how absurd.

Renegade = Please nobody

[DPSSOC]

BellaStrega wrote...

Exia001 wrote...

I still don't see why people consider MEs choices "irrelevant "

Because renegade Shepard doesn't get enough parades and paragon Shepard's choices are valid within the framework of the story.

People aren't arguing for choice, they want a game where renegade choices are the right choices.

Where they make sense to be yeah.  I have no problem with how the Renegade choice with the Council panned out, it makes sense in that instance that the Paragon choice was the right one.  What bothers me is that Paragon choices are always the right choice.  If you offer two paths, and say that both are equally valid, you need to balance out the right and wrong choices.  If you make one choice always the right one (Paragon or Renegade) you invalidate the other path, if it never works out it isn't equally valid.

Let's look at the Quarians and the Geth in ME2 for an example because it's easy.  In Tali's loyalty mission the effects on the Quarians that revealing Rael's research has clearly makes the Renegade decision the wrong one, the Migrant fleet is fractured.  Now if they wanted to blance this they could have the Paragon choice for the Geth be wrong, because, when exposed to the experiences of the Heretics, more of the true Geth actually decide to side with the Reapers, or the virus didn't actually work and the heretics are just sleeper agents, etc.  This is how you make two equally valid paths, sometimes one path is the best choice and sometimes the other, and peferably it shouldn't be immeditately clear which is which.  By making Paragon the universal best choice you've completely devalued the Renegade choice, it isn't valid it's just moronic.

[Nightwriter]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

And how does this context affect the way in which you think Cerberus should be regarded?

This is silly question.

One cannot disregard context. No matter what your'e talking about. Context is ALWAYS important.

I think you have misunderstood. The question is not, "Does context affect how Cerberus should be regarded?" It's "how."

Saphra Dedren wrote...

Understanding the context behind Cerberus' actions and existence better enable us to
judge the organization. Just looking at them on their own they can seem quite monstrous and extreme, but when we compare them to the other powers in the galaxy they don't stand out much at all.

But they don't need to stand out in order to be wrong. The context you speak of makes Cerberus unsurprising, but not justified.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 18 décembre 2011 - 04:44 .

[Bleachrude]

The problem with Cerebus I think is that if we're being true to the "style" of ME (that is, the alien races are NOT just a planet of hats a la most franchises), there should be equivalent Cerebus style organizations among the other races.

Not just the military inclined turians but also among the asari and salarians..We got a little with Facinus but Facinus is nowhere near the capability of Cerebus and we hear a little from that asari on Illum who lost her daughters (hates all other alien races).

Right now, the problem with Cerebus is that cerebus is taking on a galaxy of well, nice guys. As much as the council is portrayed as dicks in fanon, the setting is decidly pro-human friendly (really, a race that has ME tech for less than 50 years wants a seat in galactic politics? Yet the council seriously considers it)
.

[BellaStrega]

Hmm, paragon choices include:

* Do you let Balak kill the hostages and kill him, or do you let him escape so you can save the hostages?

* Do you sacrifice human ships and crews to save the Council, or do you sacrifice the Council to take the Geth on directly? Which is more important - maintaining the status quo at the expense of human lives or just getting the job done and effectively overturning the current power structure?

* Do you sacrifice a single autistic man who did not volunteer to be plugged into a VI for the sake of controlling the Geth, or do you let him go at the expense of controlling the Geth?

* Do you give the collector base to a ruthless, pragmatic individual like The Illusive Man, who is likely to not simply use the technology to fight the Reapers, but to attempt dominance over the other races and risk Cerberus being indoctrinated? Or do you sacrifice the potential technological rewards to keep that base out of Cerberus' hands, as well as avoiding the risk of indoctrination?

A lot of paragon and renegade choices exist primarily to give you more paragon and renegade points. A lot of choices exist so you have to weigh to possible outcomes. The point of these outcomes isn't winning or losing or getting an objectively better outcome or an objectively worse outcome, but specifically: Which choices are you willing to make? Which ones are you willing to live with?

Also, the Destiny Ascension is not "a couple useless politicians." It is a few useless politicians on what is apparently the most powerful, or at least one of the most powerful ships in Council space. Losing the Destiny Ascension is not just losing the Council, but a blow to morale and a significant loss in invested resources and crew (thousands of crew, if I recall correctly). The political value of saving the Council means that humanity shoots up several notches in terms of interstellar respect and reputation, and is in a much better position politically. Further, it helps alleviate the reputation humanity has for being bullies trying to intimidate and bluster their way into getting what they want, which is something you get to hear a lot about in ME1.

[John Renegade]

BellaStrega wrote...

Hmm, paragon choices include:

* Do you let Balak kill the hostages and kill him, or do you let him escape so you can save the hostages?

* Do you sacrifice human ships and crews to save the Council, or do you sacrifice the Council to take the Geth on directly? Which is more important - maintaining the status quo at the expense of human lives or just getting the job done and effectively overturning the current power structure?

* Do you sacrifice a single autistic man who did not volunteer to be plugged into a VI for the sake of controlling the Geth, or do you let him go at the expense of controlling the Geth?

* Do you give the collector base to a ruthless, pragmatic individual like The Illusive Man, who is likely to not simply use the technology to fight the Reapers, but to attempt dominance over the other races and risk Cerberus being indoctrinated? Or do you sacrifice the potential technological rewards to keep that base out of Cerberus' hands, as well as avoiding the risk of indoctrination?

Blessed are those, who do not possess the knowledge of events getting near...

Also remember, when you decided to save the Destiny Ascension, you risked the galaxy.

Modifié par John Renegade, 18 décembre 2011 - 05:55 .

[BellaStrega]

John Renegade wrote...

Blessed are those, who do not possess the knowledge of things that are coming...

Also remember, when you decided to save the Destiny Ascension, you risked the galaxy.

Yes, I've avoided some spoilers and the leaked script, so what? In another thread recently, someone was shouted down for metagaming, and I'm not metagaming, or at least not describing metagaming. I hope I didn't appeal to what might happen in ME3 because I do not know.

And yes, I know that saving the Destiny Ascension was a risk. So was losing it. There wasn't a guaranteed win in that particular battle, so it came down to, are you going to act unilaterally as an agent of humanity, or are you going to bring humanity fully into the galactic community? That was the theme threaded throughout ME1, and the backbone upon which many paragon and renegade decisions were made.

ME2 actually failed at that theme in some regards, I think. But what I do not see is a game where the only logical and rational choices at critical junctures are renegade choices.

[Bleachrude]

Again...I don't even understand WHY humanity even if the DA was sacrificed was even given a council seat.

Indeed, if anything, this should have resulted in less human respect. Remember, the Turians were given a council seat after they literally got multiple colonies wiped out and didn't back down from the krogans. Humans form a council after it gets leaked that the DA was left hanging in the wind.

Why would a galaxy that has trillions of citizens simply roll over to the new guys who only have 15 billion? Yet in the renegade option, the galaxy does this and other than news report, there is no actual change in gameplay or storyline.

Indeed, human ships ESPECIALLY cerebus ships would/should be person non-grata in the former citadel council races space like Illum. Tali should not even want to talk/join with you given what Cerebus tried to do to the Migrant Fleet and before someone says "oh, the reapers are a bigger threat so you can be a douche", realistically, what would happen is that the other races would look into the reaper threat as well from their own end. Same thing with other characters like Garrus and Liara - realistically, even if Garrus is a bad Turian, why the hell would he even think of giving a Cerebus ship Thanix weaponry (you don't think this didnt get leaked to the alliance?)

Again, the problem with those arguing for cerebus/renegade validation is that it works only if the other races are complete morons who exist only to make humanity look good. If cerebus/renegade want the benefits then realistically, humans should be treated as they actually are.

[John Renegade]

BellaStrega wrote...

John Renegade wrote...

Blessed are those, who do not possess the knowledge of things that are coming...

Also remember, when you decided to save the Destiny Ascension, you risked the galaxy.

Yes, I've avoided some spoilers and the leaked script, so what?

Just that you were mostly wrong on the matter of the choices you presented.

You still don't understand? If you weaken your own forces by saving the DA, you risk, that Sovereign opens the Citadel relay and the galaxy is finished, the cycle starts anew. One of your companions even mentions something like it before you make the decision.

[Seboist]

Rojahar wrote...

Seboist wrote...

It honestly wouldn't be that hard to create actual visible C&C, like I've said before you could take a Geth vs Quarian mission where Shepard could choose sides with the starting location and the enemies s/he fights differing while it being pretty much the same map. BW doesn't even do THAT.

I would have loved if Bioware gave us more optional objectives like Feros, but made less trivial. Imagine if it required effort to spare the colonists, so it wasn't just a choice whether to spare them or lolkillthemforthelulz, but a choice whether to kill them or potentially fail the mission. Paragon gambles to "save everybody and compromise nothing" could even materialize as something as trivial as a time limit on a certain mission, and if you don't make it then you lose both things you were trying to save - since you refused to compromise and focus on saving one objective.

What's the point of "sacrificing your morals and allies to achieve an objective" if you can achieve the objective without sacrificing anything at all? It's a non-choice, and makes the game a lot more boring, and replays as different alignments FAR less compelling than they easily could be just by making choices actually have consequences. As things are now, a Renegade choice is like "A cop is chasing a serial mass murderer, and confinscates a car to pursue the criminal. The criminal gets away, and the cop is punished in some way for taking a random person's car." while a Paragon choice is "A cop decides to not pursue and let the person get away, hoping one day they'll learn their lesson, and as usual Paragon cop is right and the person later comes back reformed, with nobody miraculously being hurt in the mean time, and that ex-criminal is the key to saving the world and everyone at every point praises and loves the cop for making such an obviously correct decision."

Someone brought up "human deaths" as a consequence of saving the Council, but we never see that consequence materialize in any way. We don't even see any allies or rewards gained for prioritizing human lives, or even enabling a human Council. You'd think a Human Council would want to meet with Shepard, and would be FAR more likely to give him Spectre status and free-reign to discreetly work with Cerberus than the original Council would regardless. What's most pathetic is even if you prioritized stopping Sovereign, and didn't deliberately "sacrifice" the Council, you're still treated like you deliberately murderered them, you know, for not prioritizing a couple useless politicians while the galaxy could have been minutes from doom.

One thing to consider is that the demise of the old council also presented an opportunity for humanity to make nice with the "outlaw" alien races like the Quarians and the Krogan who had great grievences with them. They should have been more receptive to such a Shepard as opposed to one who saved the council and proved him/herself to be a stooge/enabler of.

Unfortunately that's way too much socio-political depth for a series that's ultimately nothing more than a space jesus wish fulfillment fantasy with a lot of bad fan wanking.

Modifié par Seboist, 18 décembre 2011 - 06:40 .

[Bleachrude]

Conversely the krogans and the quarians should be JUST as wary given that sacrificing the council shows that humanity is quite willing to throw the other races under the bus.

Just as there were no benefits/advantages to the human council, neither was there any blowback AT ALL.

So again, why are renegades complaining?

re: ME setting
If ME was realistic, then humanity should/would be treated as an annoyance and even talk about human council seats wouldn't even make sense given in ME1, you learn that the last race to be given a council seat literally had whole colonies wiped out and didn't shirk.

(This is why I tend to look at the pro-human players with weirdness - we know in the codex what it took the turians to be granted a seat...why would humans even think of asking for one?)

[Nightwriter]

Bleachrude wrote...

Again...I don't even understand WHY humanity even if the DA was sacrificed was even given a council seat.

Indeed, if anything, this should have resulted in less human respect. Remember, the Turians were given a council seat after they literally got multiple colonies wiped out and didn't back down from the krogans. Humans form a council after it gets leaked that the DA was left hanging in the wind.

Why would a galaxy that has trillions of citizens simply roll over to the new guys who only have 15 billion? Yet in the renegade option, the galaxy does this and other than news report, there is no actual change in gameplay or storyline.

I think they simply didn't want too much of ME2 to focus on events from ME1.

You gave a good reason why the galaxy might not be so submissive in renegade Shepard playthroughs. What's your argument for why humans should be denied a Council seat even if Shepard saved the Council?

Bleachrude wrote...

Again, the problem with those arguing for cerebus/renegade validation is that it works only if the other races are complete morons who exist only to make humanity look good.

When has BioWare ever portrayed this aspect of the game realistically? In ME, the human race is on roughly equal status with the Council races, both martially and technologically. We've also settled and populated colonies so fast it makes me dizzy. The other races have had thousands and thousands of years to grow, expand, and gain power, yet we are a threat to them?

Willing suspension of disbelief and all that.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 18 décembre 2011 - 07:01 .

[Bleachrude]

Nightwriter wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Again...I don't even understand WHY humanity even if the DA was sacrificed was even given a council seat.

Indeed, if anything, this should have resulted in less human respect. Remember, the Turians were given a council seat after they literally got multiple colonies wiped out and didn't back down from the krogans. Humans form a council after it gets leaked that the DA was left hanging in the wind.

Why would a galaxy that has trillions of citizens simply roll over to the new guys who only have 15 billion? Yet in the renegade option, the galaxy does this and other than news report, there is no actual change in gameplay or storyline.

I think they simply didn't want too much of ME2 to focus on events from ME1.

You gave a good reason why the galaxy might not be so submissive in renegade Shepard playthroughs. What's your argument for why humans should be denied a Council seat even if Shepard saved the Council?

Bleachrude wrote...

Again, the problem with those arguing for cerebus/renegade validation is that it works only if the other races are complete morons who exist only to make humanity look good.

When has BioWare ever portrayed this aspect of the game realistically? In ME, the human race is on roughly equal status with the Council races, both martially and technologically. We've also settled and populated colonies so fast it makes me dizzy. The other races have had thousands and thousands of years to grow, expand, and gain power, yet we are a threat to them?

Willing suspension of disbelief and all that.

re: Council seat

I actually think it makes sense to gain a council seat IF the council was saved because the turians would push for it. If you do save the council, you actually find out in the news that not only do the Turians pay the interest on the reparations for Shanxi (before this, the Turians had only paid the exact amount) but are seriously considering paying amount equal in the original Shanxi reparations because they were impressed with humanity's sacrifice.

re: Setting
You'll hear no argument from me about the setting...the simple fact is you have to have a pro-human setting to get players interested in it...If humans were considered no better/less important than the citadel races that don't even get mentioned in the game (rememger, there are supposed to be dozens of races), I think ME would never be as popular as it is now...

I give Bioware full credit for at least trying to move away from the "humanity F*** yeah/ planet of hats/humans are special snowflakes" but I don't actually think it is possible to divorce it completely...

[Andorfiend]

John Renegade wrote...
Just that you were mostly wrong on the matter of the choices you presented.

You still don't understand? If you weaken your own forces by saving the DA, you risk, that Sovereign opens the Citadel relay and the galaxy is finished, the cycle starts anew. One of your companions even mentions something like it before you make the decision.

The first time I played through the game when I reached that point I thought "Huh. They've spent many minutes of game time telling me over and over again how the Destiny Ascension is the most powerful ship in the galaxy. Far more powerful than any human ship. I'll bet I need her main guns to take down Sovereign."

I had no reason to think she'd been disabled offensively, or that she was going to sit this one out. So I saved her, not becuase I gave a fig about the council, but because up to that point my best information was that she was probably my best best to take out the other monster ship.

Then in the actual cutscene Sovereign was blown up by a freaking frigate because, Hey, eveything needs to be done by our ship.

But I had no way of knowing that. Even as a Renegade, without metagame knowledge that she was going to stay out of the fight for no readily apparent reason, failing to save the Destiny Ascension was to throw away the most potent military asset you had available in the fight, for political reasons. That's not making a hard choice to get things done, it's risking the death of everyone and everything you care about, just becuase you're a xenophobe.

[DPSSOC]

Bleachrude wrote...
Why would a galaxy that has trillions of citizens simply roll over to the new guys who only have 15 billion? Yet in the renegade option, the galaxy does this and other than news report, there is no actual change in gameplay or storyline.

Doesn't Udina explain this at the end of ME1?  Been a while but I'm pretty sure the explanation is that after their losses the Council races need the Alliance to fill in the gaps to maintain their military presence against the Terminus/other threats (Geth remnants).  We're not made aware of any other military powers outside the Council.  The Alliance probably leaped on the opportunity to grab the Council by the short hairs for once and made their support contingent on a Council seat.

Bleachrude wrote...
Just as there were no benefits/advantages to the human council, neither was there any blowback AT ALL.

So again, why are renegades complaining?

It's the difference in tone mostly.  The tone with which the game addresses Paragon choices in ME1 is generally positive while the Renegade ones are decidedly negative.  Example for the Council:\\

Renegade: Alliance is facing hostility from at the very least the Turians, no indication the Alliance is any stronger than ME1 from their power grab..

Paragon: Humanity adored by all, no indication the Alliance is any worse off for their sacrifice.

So if the choice were made to have real impact the Renegades start off with a sizeable disadvantage (no allies, and the same Alliance).

It's part of the balancing problem I mentioned earlier if the choices were ever made to matter the gap between the two is too wide. That's the complaint; in ME2, while it never effects the game, we're never given any indication that anything good came from Renegade choices and nothing bad came from Paragon choices. If both choices were presented with their ups and downs it wouldn't be a problem, but they weren't, so it is.

Personally I don't even want that much. A news report that the Alliance is only just now recovering from the loss of the 8 cruisers, news of unrest on Earth over the Alliance throwing away human lives for the Council, etc. Or on the other end an actual demonstration of the Alliance's new found dominance, word that attacks on human colonies have dropped after Terra Nova, etc.

It doesn't have to effect gameplay but even out the tone.

Bleachrude wrote...
re: ME setting
If ME was realistic, then humanity should/would be treated as an annoyance and even talk about human council seats wouldn't even make sense given in ME1, you learn that the last race to be given a council seat literally had whole colonies wiped out and didn't shirk.

(This is why I tend to look at the pro-human players with weirdness - we know in the codex what it took the turians to be granted a seat...why would humans even think of asking for one?)

Genocide. Lots of races suffered under the Krogan Rebellions and kept going the Turians are exceptional only in that they finally managed to stop them. Humanity launched a successful, if short, military campaign against the Turians, has been dealing with near constant attacks from the Batarians for 30ish years now, we exposed the Council's top agent as a traitor, had two colonies decimated by the Geth, and in the end won the Battle of the Citadel, all of that with zero support from any of the other races. The Turians fought hard durring the Krogan Rebellions but at least they had allies; humanity has been fighting a war in all but name for 30 years, alone, and we still had time to save the Citadel races from their own stupidity. Yes we are awesome.

[Bleachrude]

Which arguably why I think mkes ME-worse. Think about it...we learn that the Turians lost 30 cruisers with about a crew of 300 each...that's only 900 people and this supposedly wiipes out the majority of the turian fleet? Really?

Humanity-****** stories are a dime a dozen in fiction and the fact that in ME1, Bioware tried to actually go beyond that was what actually intrigued me about it...

Think about the numbers...A multiple trillion plus civilization is bending over for a race that only got ME tech 50 years ago and has only 15 billion in population.

Realistically, humanity should refuse the citadel seat since you know...being part of the council meant obligations aka providing security for the other races...Humanity would be strained even ore than it is.

In short..I'm not even sure saving the council should be considered the paragon choice...The renegade choice of saving the most powerful ship in the entire galaxy at the cost of some human cruisers would/should be the best choice since there would be NOTHING coming through the relay that has a better chance of taking down Sovereign...

[DPSSOC]

Bleachrude wrote...
Which arguably why I think mkes ME-worse. Think about it...we learn that the Turians lost 30 cruisers with about a crew of 300 each...that's only 900 people and this supposedly wiipes out the majority of the turian fleet? Really?

9,000 I think.  I think it's more the loss of ships, or perhaps they took other losses and Shepard only mentioned cruisers because that's all that humanity lost.  Or perhaps it was the combined loss of Asari, Turian, and Salarian vessels (let's assume 3:5 losses) that tipped the scales; 18 cruisers being a heavier loss for the less militarized Council races than it would the Turians.  Probably best not to think about it too hard.

Bleachrude wrote...
Realistically, humanity should refuse the citadel seat since you know...being part of the council meant obligations aka providing security for the other races...Humanity would be strained even ore than it is.

Since when?  Again I point out, 30 years dealing with the Batarians, zero support.  Geth attack, zero support.  Council's top agent exposed as the mastermind behind the Geth attack, zero support.  Or to step outside humanity for a moment: Volus colonies being conquered by the Krogan, zero support, and they created the damn economy.

Bleachrude wrote...
In short..I'm not even sure saving the council should be considered the paragon choice...The renegade choice of saving the most powerful ship in the entire galaxy at the cost of some human cruisers would/should be the best choice since there would be NOTHING coming through the relay that has a better chance of taking down Sovereign...

Hmm, interesting thought.

[BellaStrega]

John Renegade wrote...

Just that you were mostly wrong on the matter of the choices you presented.

I should have remembered that anything that doesn't favor renegade decisions is seen as wrong. I forgot that some of you want a game where Paragon choices mean you lose the game.

You
still don't understand? If you weaken your own forces by saving the DA,
you risk, that Sovereign opens the Citadel relay and the galaxy is
finished, the cycle starts anew. One of your companions even mentions
something like it before you make the decision.

Because of course the Destiny Ascension is itself useless if it doesn't explode? What use could the most powerful ship in the galaxy be in a fight?

I suggest reading up on "confirmation bias" sometime. And yes, I do understand. I do not agree. There is a difference.

Andorfiend wrote...

The first time I played through the game when I reached that point I thought "Huh. They've spent many minutes of game time telling me over and over again how the Destiny Ascension is the most powerful ship in the galaxy. Far more powerful than any human ship. I'll bet I need her main guns to take down Sovereign."

I had no reason to think she'd been disabled offensively, or that she was going to sit this one out. So I saved her, not becuase I gave a fig about the council, but because up to that point my best information was that she was probably my best best to take out the other monster ship.

Then in the actual cutscene Sovereign was blown up by a freaking frigate because, Hey, eveything needs to be done by our ship.

But I had no way of knowing that. Even as a Renegade, without metagame knowledge that she was going to stay out of the fight for no readily apparent reason, failing to save the Destiny Ascension was to throw away the most potent military asset you had available in the fight, for political reasons. That's not making a hard choice to get things done, it's risking the death of everyone and everything you care about, just becuase you're a xenophobe.

^^^ This right here. This is what I was saying. No matter what you choose at the end of ME1, you're going to lose military assets. The question is not a matter of if, but which ones you're willing to expend to deal with Sovereign and the Geth, and the consequences of each decision.

Modifié par BellaStrega, 19 décembre 2011 - 12:12 .

[Bleachrude]

1. Shepard EXPLICITY mentions that a turian cruiser hols roughly 300 people. Even your figure of 9000 makes no sense since this should be easily replaceable even among the much, much smaller human alliance.

2. The human council WILL give you back Spectre status and yet you still can go to Illum and Tuchanka and do everything and the worse you get is some "bad comments". Shouldn't the renegade option mean that the races will less likely trust you?

3. The Batarians have been dicks to everyone or did you forget that the Batarians raided/slaved other council races as well? Hell, the council even sided with humans in the Skyliian verge decision even though, it is right outside of batarian space.

3. If you go Renegade, Cerebus praises you just as much so I'm not sure how this is "renegade players get screwed".

4. Hell, paragons get it worse since even if you saved the council, the council STILL doesn't believe a damn thing you said. Does a paragon player get any praise or extra funds or any intel from the council? Renegade players don't have to deal with "ah Reapers" and renegade players think they are being shortchanged?

The only thing Renegades don't get is everyone patting you on the back.

And again, Im wondering why giving up your most powerful ship is the smart choice...Really, if anything, the best choice without metagaming would be "save the destiny ascension so it can manoeuvre and get some space to fire its big honking gun that can tear through ANY alliance ship kinetic barrier"

[EpicBoot2daFace]

BlueMagitek wrote...

I expected Cerberus to be a problem in the post-Reaper future, not the immediate Reaper future.

Exactly.

Killing Shepard, the one who can actually stop the reapers, just doesn't make any sense. If anything, they would put all the politics aside and fight alongside the Alliance. THAT would make sense and help this story that is already in deep trouble.

[sevach]

Bioware made Cerberus the evil organization who will make un-ethical experiments and use every weapon available in their quest for power.
If you think about it, TIM's objective in ME2 isn't stopping the collectors and saving colonists, his objective is acquire Reaper tech.
Which is why he gets angry when you "fail" the mission and blows the base sky high.

"Against the Reapers and beyond", does suggest that if TIM finds himself in a position of advantage he might try to subjugate the other races (and i don't doubt that).

But here is the thing Bioware didn't expect, some people actually like the humans first and a "the ends justify the means" type agenda, and were willing to be onboard with it, ME1 (in which Cerberus is an afterthought) had it with the kill the council outright option, Cerberus suited people who took that option just fine, but now Bioware took that option out apparently.

And that is just one more case of Bioware telling you that playing Renegade is wrong.

[Bad King]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

I expected Cerberus to be a problem in the post-Reaper future, not the immediate Reaper future.

Exactly.

Killing Shepard, the one who can actually stop the reapers, just doesn't make any sense. If anything, they would put all the politics aside and fight alongside the Alliance. THAT would make sense and help this story that is already in deep trouble.

This was what I was hoping- an uncertain and fragile alliance between Cerberus and the Alliance- it would have been an interesting situation. But BioWare needed some sort of secondary enemy in the game so that people wouldn't have to be fighting husks exclusively, so after ME2 they decided to turn Cerberus into antagonists in order to fulfill this need for a secondary enemy (it was almost certainly done for gameplay reasons).